If Topping is the witness...

[The Good Michael]

David,

You can't be sure of anything you've said. You are playing a hunch.

We don't know much about Fleming, do we. Why not 6'7". You don't see venturney or Barnett giving a description of him, do you? That's why height isn't mentioned. They probably never met him.

Think what you will. It's all surmise.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

I have to disagree, Mike.
For 6'7 would have been too striking a detail, especially in 1888.
Mary apparently confided several things about Fleming to her friend.
That she loved Fleming. That he gave her money at times. That he still visited her. That he sometimes ill-used her.
So, had he been such a giant, she would have probably mentioned it. Girls talk about what their boyfriends look like, don't they ?
Therefore, no mention of such a height + a wealthy Fleming in hospital = most probably, our man wasn't 6'7.
You can repeat I can't be sure, but that's simply the most likely and reasonable conclusion one can draw.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Why the mistake in Fleming's records. If there was a mistake in, oh 50% of the records, then I'd say okay. yet, why this one place, and why his height? Have you ever thought that the weight was the mistake? No, because you want this mistake. You need to realize that I don't care a bit about Fleming. You want to make this fit, so there has to be a mistake. Again, chances are that there wasn't a mistake in this instance simply because of coincidence. You want it to be so, poof, it is so.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Have you ever thought that the weight was the mistake? No, because you want this mistake.
Mike

Wrong,
because the asylum records mention his weight several times, in different years. And this weight varies, but just a little.

P(r)oof.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Voila! It is done.

Mike

[Ben]

I'm pretty sure David and I both referred to the fact that a person was very unlikely to have been 6,7 in height, 11 stone in weight, and in "good bodily health" all at the same time. This naturally increases the possibility of a mistake. We know they got the age wrong, for starters.

[The Good Michael]

Whatever. This is a Toppy thread.

Mike

[DVV]

Voila! It is done.

Mike

Indeed.
The asylum records show that there is no possible mistake about his weight, and that your suggestion was erroneous.

To get back on topic, if Toppy was the witness, Hutch wasn't Fleming.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

David,

Why one mistake just where it needs to be for your benefit? The Gods have blessed you? You rubbed a lamp? Too much coincidence for my taste, but you believe what works for you. I don't mind at all. All I care about is Hutch being cleared so that his family members might live decent lives, unfettered by the chains of shame that people have erroneously placed on poor George's ankles.

Cheers,

Mike

[babybird67]

hi Crystal

[QUOTE=Crystal;77687]

Toppy was telling the truth - he really was there when he said he was and really did see a cartoon foreigner straight out of contemporary popular fiction. QUOTE]

I haven't read all of this thread but with my ME i tend to have to get something down at the time it occurs to me or risk losing the point altogether so forgive me if someone else has already said this!

In what you say above you attribute the description of the suspect to invention on Hutch's part, and that it matched popular stereotypes of the day.

Has anyone considered that in fact it could have been the murderer who was adopting such stereotypes? Responding to the popular understanding of the murderer being a well to do Jew type person? Wouldn't this be a possibility since if it is accepted that someone like George Chapman could easily have changed his hair/moustache colour with his barber's experience, he could just as easily change his clothes to portray someone he wanted the Police to be looking for...perhaps this could explain why he did not apparently notice/mind being followed by Hutch and observed at great length...because he knew very well the description Hutch would give would throw everyone off the track of a "normal" barber?

I think Hutch saw who he said he saw, although i do believe he embellished a little in order to explain to the Police's satisfaction why he was there e.g. they looked odd so i followed them, rather than, well Mary was drunk and i was broke so i followed them waiting to see if i could get laid for free?

I think the killer was already manipulating who the Police were looking for via the GSG...dressing up as he did was just furthering that manipulation.

If we believe as we must (?) that the killer was altering his appearance in terms of hair colour, who is to say for sure that he was not altering his appearance in terms of clothing? He would have to have a change of clothes on him wouldn't he for after the murder in MJK's room? So it makes sense for him to go in as a well-to-do and, if seen around nearby later, be in the immediate area as a shabby genteel? Hutch the witness would then say, "Oh no the man with her just before her death looked nothing like him."

Pure conjecture as always on my part! But interesting to attribute instead the manipulation going on as directed by the murderer not one of the witnesses.

Can't wait to see your results on the other thread btw Crystal!

[DVV]

David,
Why one mistake just where it needs to be for your benefit?
Mike

Which mistake, please ?
Your suggestion about a possible mistake about Fleming's weight was a mistake.
Just read the records, and you'll know you were wrong.
That you can't admit it is another problem. Yours, not mine.

As to the rest of your post, about God, etc, I really don't care.

Now, Hutchinson's family.
Is he the only suspect in the case with descendants ?
Where's the problem ?
I've opened this thread, which is rather an indication that I keep an open mind, ie, perhaps Toppy was the witness.
I've also said several times that, imo, Toppy tends to clear Hutch.
I could be right. I could be wrong. Whatever, I try my best to be fair.
You should try also, at times.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

David,

I'm talking about the supposed mistake in Fleming's height. I suggested the weight could have been a mistake. It could have been wrtitten incorrectly in several instances. It probably wasn't. The height could have been written incorrectly in one instance. It probably wasn't in my opinion. That's all. I suggest that you must have this recorded mistake to make Fleming fit and that it may not be the case.

Let's be done with this nonsense and get back to Toppy, ok?

Mike

[Ben]

All I care about is Hutch being cleared so that his family members might live decent lives, unfettered by the chains of shame that people have erroneously placed on poor George's ankles.

Well, obviously that isn't worth taking remotely seriously. Hutchinson is a legitimately suspicious character in this series of murders. Doesn't make him the ripper necessarily, but he's the best of a bad bunch as far as I'm concerned.

There's no coincidence involved in the possibility of a mistake in the records, since we know mistakes were made, and we know that the chances of someone that tall and that thin being in "good bodily health" is very slim.

[perrymason]

[QUOTE=babybird67;82981]

Toppy was telling the truth - he really was there when he said he was and really did see a cartoon foreigner straight out of contemporary popular fiction. QUOTE]

I haven't read all of this thread but with my ME i tend to have to get something down at the time it occurs to me or risk losing the point altogether so forgive me if someone else has already said this!

In what you say above you attribute the description of the suspect to invention on Hutch's part, and that it matched popular stereotypes of the day.

Has anyone considered that in fact it could have been the murderer who was adopting such stereotypes? Responding to the popular understanding of the murderer being a well to do Jew type person? Wouldn't this be a possibility since if it is accepted that someone like George Chapman could easily have changed his hair/moustache colour with his barber's experience, he could just as easily change his clothes to portray someone he wanted the Police to be looking for...perhaps this could explain why he did not apparently notice/mind being followed by Hutch and observed at great length...because he knew very well the description Hutch would give would throw everyone off the track of a "normal" barber?

I think Hutch saw who he said he saw, although i do believe he embellished a little in order to explain to the Police's satisfaction why he was there e.g. they looked odd so i followed them, rather than, well Mary was drunk and i was broke so i followed them waiting to see if i could get laid for free?

I think the killer was already manipulating who the Police were looking for via the GSG...dressing up as he did was just furthering that manipulation.

If we believe as we must (?) that the killer was altering his appearance in terms of hair colour, who is to say for sure that he was not altering his appearance in terms of clothing? He would have to have a change of clothes on him wouldn't he for after the murder in MJK's room? So it makes sense for him to go in as a well-to-do and, if seen around nearby later, be in the immediate area as a shabby genteel? Hutch the witness would then say, "Oh no the man with her just before her death looked nothing like him."

Pure conjecture as always on my part! But interesting to attribute instead the manipulation going on as directed by the murderer not one of the witnesses.

Can't wait to see your results on the other thread btw Crystal!

Hi babybird,

I do like the way you explore potential answers to the questions, welcome to the boards.

I for one dont think it impossible that he did intentionally create "looks" to use when heading out for a ripping. I also think his normal attire might be expected on the streets at those times of nights. Uniforms, coveralls, docker worker dress styles. Im not sure about the grow a mustache, shave it for the next kill night, dark hair/light hair kind of disguises though. They werent really needed. A Hat a coat that fits with the streets and the hour, and discretion, would go a long way. Evidenced by the fact that not one accredited witness got a great look at any suspects face.

Many people seem to feel that his having some blood on him or bloody organs shouldnt be noticed at that time of night....but Im more interested in what the killer might think are acceptable risks. He does kill in public...but not in daylight. He seems elusive, and that suggests he went to some length to not get caught.

It seems to me that if Toppy was the Hutchinson...and had nothing at all to do with the murder that night, a normal and documented life after Jack makes some sense. We know the man named Joe Fleming that Mary once lived with is institutionalized for life a few years after the murders, so we know what happens to him.

This sticking point though shouldnt sidetrack the little detail of his elimination from the trusted witness pool. Im as curious as anyone as to why this occurred at all...but it seems like there are potential reasonable simple explanations.

Identifying THE Mr H as Toppy would be interesting....what value he would then have to the proceedings today is questionable.

Best regards.

[Ben]

Hey BB,

Has anyone considered that in fact it could have been the murderer who was adopting such stereotypes? Responding to the popular understanding of the murderer being a well to do Jew type person?

Surely that would be the antithesis of self preservation, though? If he was aware that press and public were clamouring for the arrest of a surly, Jewish man with a black package, surely it would have been the worst possibe misstep for the murderer to dress himself in a fashion that pandered to that very stereotype?

As for Klosowski, the chances of him having access to the sort of garments and accessories referred to by Hutchinson are very remote. By that early stage, he was still a relatively impoverished immigrant of 22 years of age (not 35), and the indications are that he could not communicate in English at that stage. It's unlikely that he wouldn't have minded Hutchinson following him. Miller's Court only had one exit, and he'd essentially have been cornering himself in the certainty that a potential vigilante, informer, or plain clothes police officer had clocked him at close quarters and followed him.

Another problem with Astrakhan man as the ripper is that the police clearly didn't buy into the notion in the long run, and Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was clearly discarded as a potential ripper sighting.

Generally speaking, I'm dubious about the idea that the killer resorted to disguises. They weren't particularly easy to come by, especially if the killer belonged to the vast majority population which comprised the working class poor. Dressing "well-to-do" wouldn't have been a good idea since it was likely to attract interest from the worst possible source - potential muggers and suspicious residents. Not quite the ticket, if you're intent on bloody murder.

Best regards,
Ben